1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The applicant seeks quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.308/2025 registered with Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2), 336(3), 238, 61 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Charge-sheet No.99/2025 filed in Regular Criminal Case No.5214/2025 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.
3. The charge-sheet indicates that Mangesh Thakare, the husband of complainant / non-applicant no.2 – Varsha Thakare was having a life insurance policy in his name. Mangesh Thakare was the client of the applicant who is a Chartered Accountant by profession. Non-applicant no.2 was a beneficiary of the said term insurance policy. After the death of Mangesh Thakare, non-applicant no.2 became the client of the applicant. When she had been to the applicant for claiming the amount of ₹1,10,90,000/- of the life insurance policy, the applicant introduced his brother co-accused – Ram Vasani, a life insurance agent and informed her that he will help her in processing the claim. The FIR depicts that non-applicant no.2, alongwith her son, received the amount of their respective shares in the policy in the death claim and the amount was credited to their respective accounts. It has been alleged in the FIR that when the amount got credited to the son’s account through the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), main accused – Ram Vasani and his wife induced non-applicant no.2 to invest the amount with Kotak Mutual Fund on the premise of good returns. When the amount of share of non-applicant no.2 was credited to her account, again the main accused – Ram Vasani had visited non-applicant no.2 and induced her to invest the same. Accordingly, non-applicant no.2 gave the amount of ₹40 lakhs and ₹50 lakhs respectively for investing it with Kotak Mutual Fund. Main accused – Ram Vasani gave the statement of accounts of Kotak Mutual Fund on both the instances. When non-applicant no.2 received a letter from HDFC Bank for settlement of home loan, she requested main accused – Ram Vasani for withdrawal of the amount invested in Kotak Mutual Fund but main accused – Ram Vasani on or the other pretext, avoided the same. When the son of non-applicant no.2 visited Kotak Bank and enquired with them, he came to know that no such amount has been invested in their name with Kotak Mutual Fund. Later on, it was revealed that the said amount was used by the main accused for his personal use. Inspite of repeated requests, main accused – Ram Vasani failed to refund the amount of ₹90 lakhs given for investment with Kotak Mutual Fund. Therefore, on the complaint of non-applicant no.2, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against main accused – Ram Vasani as well as the present applicant.
4. Shri Bezalwar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that after investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned trial Court. He further submits that there is no whisper in the entire charge-sheet, whereby it can be said that the applicant who is a Chartered Accountant by profession, has committed any of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2), 336(3), 238, 61 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. According to him, the allegation against the applicant is that he introduced the main accused to non-applicant no.2, that too for the death claim of her husband with LIC. The said amount has already been received by non-applicant no.2 and her son. It is after receiving the amount out of the death claim that the act of duping non-applicant no.2 was done by main accused – Ram Vasani on account of investment as agreed. No role whatsoever has been played by the applicant in the investment fraud. Rather, there are no allegations in the FIR or in the charge-sheet that it is the applicant who told non-applicant no.2 or her son to invest the amount with main accused – Ram Vasani. According to him, the applicant has been made an accused for no reason. He is a practicing Chartered Accountant and inspite of having no material against him, he has been charge-sheeted by the police, which is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecuting agency. Just because the applicant is the brother of the main accused, he has been added as an accused in this case. According to him, this is nothing but abuse of the process of law.
5. Per contra, Ms Prabhu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Shri Kubade, learned counsel for non-applicant no.2 submits that it is the applicant who introduced the main accused to non-applicant no.2. Therefore, non-applicant no.2 handed over the amount to the main accused who duped non-applicant no.2 for the substantial amount of ₹90 lakhs. It is further submitted that the charges have already been framed and the evidence of non-applicant no.2 has already been recorded. Therefore, they sought rejection of the application.
6. Perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that the applicant is a practicing Chartered Accountant and the husband of non-applicant no.2 was his client who had purchased a term insurance policy assured of ₹1.10 crore from LIC. After his death, non- applicant no.2 approached the applicant for claiming the amount with LIC, since she as well as her son were the beneficiaries. Main accused – Ram Vasani, who is a LIC agent, is the brother of the applicant. It is appearing from the charge-sheet that the applicant stated the name of the main accused for processing the death claim with LIC. Non-applicant no.2 then approached main accused – Ram Vasani. It is pertinent to note that that the death claim was submitted by non-applicant no.2 and her son with LIC and after the death claim was sanctioned, the amount under the policy was credited to their respective bank accounts equally. The charge-sheet indicates that thereafter, main accused – Ram Vasani induced non-applicant no.2 and her son to invest the amount with Kotak Mutual Fund and accordingly, the amount to the extent of ₹90 lakhs was given by non-applicant no.2 and her son to main accused – Ram Vasani. There are no allegations whatsoever against the applicant that after the amount was received by non-applicant no.2 and her son, they ever contacted the applicant and sought advise for investment. Rather, the FIR itself indicates that after they were duped, the applicant asked non-applicant no.2 and her son as to why they did not contact him earlier. If this is the state of affairs, then no liability can be fixed against the applicant, much less criminal liability. No role has been played by the applicant in inducing non-applicant no.2 and her son to invest the amount with main accused – Ram Vasani. The role of the applicant was to the extent of recommending the name of main accused – Ram Vasani for processing the death claim with LIC which as per the record, has been duly received by non-applicant no.2 and her son. The applicant is not liable for whatever happened thereafter. There is no whisper in the entire charge-sheet that after receipt of the amount of death claim and before they were duped by the main accused, they ever contacted the applicant. The case in hand is an open and shut case, so far as the applicant is concerned.
7. It is a settled position of law that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
8. No doubt, the trial has begun and one witness has already been examined, but when there is no material against the applicant at all, the conviction cannot be secured in the trial. It will be a serious miscarriage of justice if the applicant is asked to go through the tedious process of trial when ultimately, he is going to be acquitted, since there is no iota of evidence against the applicant regarding his involvement in the alleged crime.
9. Having found no material against the applicant in the entire charge-sheet, it will be unfair to ask the applicant to go through the process of trial, which may take at least another couple of months, particularly when the result is certain. Rather, the applicant has been implicated unnecessarily by the prosecuting agency.
10. It will be appropriate to refer to clause 1 of para 102 in the decision of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which reads thus:
““102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.”
11. Therefore, a case is made out for quashing of the FIR by exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. The case of the applicant falls under clause (1) of Para 102 of the Bhajanlal (supra). Resultantly, the following order is passed:
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report bearing Crime No.308/2025 registered with Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2), 336(3), 238, 61 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Charge-sheet No.99/2025 filed in Regular Criminal Case No.5214/2025 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, qua the applicant only, are quashed and set aside.
